October 31, 2012

Facebook, Rule 1.16, Rule 3.3, and the Crime-Fraud Exception

Here's a New York Times story that could make for a good classroom discussion.

In a nutshell, several high profile lawyers have withdrawn from representing a man who claimed that, in 2003, he entered into a written agreement with Mark Zuckerberg in which Zuckerberg promised the plaintiff a substantial ownership stake in Facebook. The U.S. Attorney's Office has now initiated criminal fraud proceedings against the plaintiff, alleging that he fabricated the alleged agreement.

The story implicates several issues covered in the typical PR class. For example, students should be able to speculate as to why the lawyers for the plaintiff withdrew by analyzing Rules 1.16 and 3.3. Students could also explore whether the prosecutors will be able to compel the testimony of the withdrawing lawyers through the use of the crime fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. There may also be some issues for those lawyers regarding Rule 3.1 (i.e., at what point did they know the claim was frivolous?). Any other issues?

Comments

Facebook, Rule 1.16, Rule 3.3, and the Crime-Fraud Exception

Here's a New York Times story that could make for a good classroom discussion.

In a nutshell, several high profile lawyers have withdrawn from representing a man who claimed that, in 2003, he entered into a written agreement with Mark Zuckerberg in which Zuckerberg promised the plaintiff a substantial ownership stake in Facebook. The U.S. Attorney's Office has now initiated criminal fraud proceedings against the plaintiff, alleging that he fabricated the alleged agreement.

The story implicates several issues covered in the typical PR class. For example, students should be able to speculate as to why the lawyers for the plaintiff withdrew by analyzing Rules 1.16 and 3.3. Students could also explore whether the prosecutors will be able to compel the testimony of the withdrawing lawyers through the use of the crime fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. There may also be some issues for those lawyers regarding Rule 3.1 (i.e., at what point did they know the claim was frivolous?). Any other issues?